Uh oh....NOT good. Bhutto Assasinated

[sirs]

And yet, you still find all this time to rant and complain about something you now keep claiming was never your real intention.  I especially liked the part where my demonstrating your gross inaccuracies regarding "changing of stories" and my supposed hero worship of Bush & 1 track mind were all layed bare for all to see. 

*laugh* in his dreams he types   

When you're ready for me to apparently stop preventing you from focusing on Pakistan, we'll look forward to some positive material we all know you are capable of.

[_JS]

Amateur video with BBC commentary

Worth a look.

I still think Musharraf was knee-deep in this thing. Suddenly the military can't control al-Qaeda?

 

[sirs]

"Suddenly"?  When were they in complete control?

[_JS]

"Suddenly"?  When were they in complete control?

Musharraf has been the leader for quite some time without being blown up, shot, or otherwise bumping his head on a car door and leading to his untimely death.

Pakistan, despite what you see on western television has been, until recently, a relatively safe country (with the exception of the very northern autonomous regions). I've known three people who have visited over the past two years, only one of whom was Pakistani and a male. Unless you travel to Waziristan or Kashmir (and if you aren't a journalist, why would you?) the rest of the country is enitrely stable.

Yet, in a small city right next to Islamabad, perhaps the most well-known Pakistani in the world gets murdered?

It is not adding up correctly.

[gipper]

I don't know the details well, and I'm fairly ignorant of Pakistan's present character as a nation, but the way I see it is that Musharraf is guilty of neglect and not necessarily complicity. I would add that Bhutto was singularly reckless; wasn't the JFK example enough of a warning, or the attempt on her life when she first returned? Whatever the politics of protection were, there were many groups with an interest in seeing Bhutto dead, but I'm not sure the Musharrafists were among them. The backlash is going to crack on their backs most visibly.

[_JS]

I might also add that she was killed in Rawalpindi, headquarters of the Pakistani Army and Air Force (also the location where her father was hanged).

(Sorry, I did not change Domer's post at all, it did something odd when I tried to add this note to mine)

[sirs]

"Suddenly"?  When were they in complete control?

Musharraf has been the leader for quite some time without being blown up, shot, or otherwise bumping his head on a car door and leading to his untimely death.

Come on Js.  He's also been head of the Government, akin to the President, while Bhutto was more like Obama, or Hillary if you want.  And there have been attempts made.  Point being his security IS going to be tighter than hers.  That's just a given.  And as I've already referenced, it makes no sense for him to throw away all the credibility & legitimacy, not to mention the coziness of American tax $$$, by being behind something like this.  No sense at all.  Now, back to my question......when did Musharraf have such control of AlQeada that they were prevented from carrying out any terrorist activity within Pakistan??

[_JS]

"Suddenly"?  When were they in complete control?

Musharraf has been the leader for quite some time without being blown up, shot, or otherwise bumping his head on a car door and leading to his untimely death.

Come on Js.  He's also been head of the Government, akin to the President, while Bhutto was more like Obama, or Hillary if you want.  And there have been attempts made.  Point being his security IS going to be tighter than hers.  That's just a given.  And as I've already referenced, it makes no sense for him to throw away all the credibility & legitimacy, not to mention the coziness of American tax $$$, by being behind something like this.  No sense at all.  Now, back to my question......when did Musharraf have such control of AlQeada that they were prevented from carrying out any terrorist activity within Pakistan??

Now wait. We're going to stop helping Pakistan fight terrorism because we don't like Musharraf's military regime? We both know that isn't true. Pakistan is far too vital. We have set things up to where we have no choice but to support whatever government springs from Islamabad to fight terrorism as well as try and secure the border with Afghanistan.

It isn't a question of "having control of al-Qaeda" it is a question of managing security. As I told you earlier, with some notable exceptions, Pakistan is a stable country (well, it was).

I also disagree with your characterization of Bhutto. She was the former head of the country. Hey, all I'm saying is that the entire situation is extremely peculiar. Musharraf was not overjoyed at her return by any means. You see it as "power sharing to build credibility." Now let me ask you, if you were a manager of a business and the company told you that they were bringing in a co-manager to boost your credibility after you've single-handedly run your division for years - you'd see that as a positive thing - right?

[BT]

JS

I understand your point, but I still don't see how Musharraf benefits by assassinating her.

That doesn't preclude a rouge element of his armed forces, perhaps from the ISS, had a hand in it, much like a rogue element of the CIA had a hand in JFK's demise.

Perhaps this is a double coup. I don't see Musharraf surviving this, literally or figurately.

[gipper]

I see your comments as amounting to a powerful ambivalence, JS, but not necessarily an active malevolence. Without knowing expectations and capabilities of her own party's protection potential, and not knowing the complexities of the politics and personal resentments among the army who would be charged with her care, it is premature to come to a conclusion as to cause and effect. There are a lot of reasonable alternatives: from "screw them, they're on their own" to "we really can't control her political activities (we tried but were thwarted with house arrest)" to "rightfully, the tradition here is to provide your own security" to "what do you mean: we were on duty as directed but we just weren't really 'into it.'" That's why an independent investigation is so vital. You know, the truth shall set you free (but unfortunately not resurrect a reckless politician).

[sirs]

"Suddenly"?  When were they in complete control?

Musharraf has been the leader for quite some time without being blown up, shot, or otherwise bumping his head on a car door and leading to his untimely death.

Come on Js.  He's also been head of the Government, akin to the President, while Bhutto was more like Obama, or Hillary if you want.  And there have been attempts made.  Point being his security IS going to be tighter than hers.  That's just a given.  And as I've already referenced, it makes no sense for him to throw away all the credibility & legitimacy, not to mention the coziness of American tax $$$, by being behind something like this.  No sense at all.  Now, back to my question......when did Musharraf have such control of AlQeada that they were prevented from carrying out any terrorist activity within Pakistan??

Now wait. We're going to stop helping Pakistan fight terrorism because we don't like Musharraf's military regime? We both know that isn't true.

IF he's behind her assisination, you bet we will.  At least, I'd advocate pull-out

It isn't a question of "having control of al-Qaeda" it is a question of managing security. As I told you earlier, with some notable exceptions, Pakistan is a stable country (well, it was).

It is a question of who is to be provided more security, if we're talking simply who's being protected.  I'm not saying that security around Bhutto was the best it could have been.  What I am saying, especially given the video you provided, when someone is willing to blow themselves up, those with greater security are going to be able to prevent such, than those with lesser security.  The leader of a country is GOING to have more security than someone who's simply running.  Right?  And were there not attempts made on Musharraf??

[Xavier_Onassis]

Bhutto represents the people of the Punjabi and Sinhi less militant majority. The mountain people are mostly Pashtuns. Mushariff is somewhere in the middle, and the army has not done a very good job of running the country. The soldiers like weapons, and they probably piss away a lot more on unnecessary defense than the Bhuttos have ever stolen, if indeed they have stolen at all.

I did find the bit where Benazir gets to declare in her will who leads her party, and somehow we are supposed to see this as "democratic". How is heredity democratic in the least?

I suppose if I were a Paki, this might make sense.

[Henny]

IF he's behind her assisination, you bet we will.  At least, I'd advocate pull-out

Sirs, that doesn't make sense. We're not in Pakistan to help them, we're in Pakistan to help because they are a critical border with Afghanistan and an important front in dealing with Al-Qaeda.

[sirs]

IF he's behind her assisination, you bet we will.  At least, I'd advocate pull-out

Sirs, that doesn't make sense. We're not in Pakistan to help them, we're in Pakistan to help because they are a critical border with Afghanistan and an important front in dealing with Al-Qaeda.

We're in Pakistan because Pakistan is supposed to be an ally in dealing with AlQeada.  If Pakistan is going to act like AlQeada, then we to treat them like they were Afghanistan, under the Taliban.  That's what makes sense to me

[Henny]

IF he's behind her assisination, you bet we will.  At least, I'd advocate pull-out

Sirs, that doesn't make sense. We're not in Pakistan to help them, we're in Pakistan to help because they are a critical border with Afghanistan and an important front in dealing with Al-Qaeda.

We're in Pakistan because Pakistan is supposed to be an ally in dealing with AlQeada.  If Pakistan is going to act like AlQeada, then we to treat them like they were Afghanistan, under the Taliban.  That's what makes sense to me

I don't think we gave them a lot of choices on being an ally.

But your solution is interesting.